Mailing List Archive

> Is it just me, or does the level of aggregation within 207/8 really suck?
>
> --
> Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc.
> kozowski@structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
> (503)656-3235 FAX "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
> (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1

We see 616 routes in 207/8.

Our route aggregation suggestion tool suggests 281 aggregation possibilities
(which is not 281 routes potentially saved, but 281 routes that could be
aggregated).

It's clear from hand-inspection that some of the routes are being announced
more specifically for multi-homed customers, but I'm sure that a lot of those
routes could be aggregated or are covered by an already-announced more general
route.

Right now, it sorts routes and aggregation suggestions by provider and not
by IP address, but you can look at:

http://routes.netaxs.com

Some technical & political sisclaimers are on that page :)

One key disclaimer is that it is now sorting by next-hop at MAE-East instead
of by AS-PATH, but we see a 1:1 correlation in our data between next-AS and
next-hop.

The other key one is that it's a tool that produces interesting output now,
but is NOT designed/tested for generating configs from.

207.6/16
207.10/16
207.12/14
207.16/16
207.23/16
207.43/16
207.70.64/18

Appear to be some of the most-in-need-of-aggregation areas.

One interesting thing that appears to be the case is that some owners
(nic-wise) of <= /16s appear to not have a matching catch-all route
and corresponding aggregation installed/announced.

Avi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

| Is it just me, or does the level of aggregation within 207/8 really suck?

I don't know what you mean. I only see /18s, /17s, /16s, and a couple /14s.

A particular form of suppressing the advertisement of more-specific
prefixes may be broken in someone's network, though. Known problem.

Sean.

P.S.: Hm, some of our customers seem to be announcing lots of unaggregated
prefixes. I think people know how to avoid seeing these and
in so doing pressure them to aggregate at the source.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

| Is it just me, or does the level of aggregation within 207/8 really suck?

I don't know what you mean. I only see /18s, /17s and shorter prefixes.

This looks like really good aggregation to me.

OTOH, we're rather liberal in what we pass along from our paying customers,
but the fix for that is known. access-list 112. Knock yourself out.

Sean.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>| Is it just me, or does the level of aggregation within 207/8 really suck?
>
>I don't know what you mean. I only see /18s, /17s and shorter prefixes.
>
>This looks like really good aggregation to me.
>
>OTOH, we're rather liberal in what we pass along from our paying customers,
>but the fix for that is known. access-list 112. Knock yourself out.

Some of us prefer to not break connectivity for our customers.

The sorry state of aggregation doesn't (currently) affect me one way or the
other. It would just be nice to see other network operators clean up their
announcements.

I've always gone by the "be liberal in what you accept and conservative in
what you create" school of thought. Maybe if others would, we wouldn't have
such a problem w/ the route table size.

--
Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc.
kozowski@structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
(503)656-3235 FAX "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
(800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -